Refresher needed - How maintain reputation?

[planetfall]

After last game, I think I need a refresher in how reputation is maintained and destroyed.

Obvious reputation wreckers are:
-- combat without declaration of war
-- breaking MPP
-- being top dog way way above other civs.

But what about these?

1. Short war: Settling for peace with Egypt before 20 turn Military Alliance with Rome vs Egypt expires?

2. Embargo: Setting up a trade embargo?

3. City capture: Taking a few cities and then settling for peace?

4. Resource grabbing: Building a city taking a resource near another civ border, or superceeding a colony?

In last game, I think I did #1 and haunted me for entire game. Ugh.

More Questions:
A-- How do you monitor your reputation?

B-- How much will a "bad" reputation hurt?

C-- How can I repair a poor reputation?

D-- Is there a way to wreck a targeted AI civ's reputation?


Thank you for your suggestions.

-- PF

[Thrawn05]

Re: Refresher needed - How maintain reputation?

Originally posted by planetfall
After last game, I think I need a refresher in how reputation is maintained and destroyed.

Obvious reputation wreckers are:
-- combat without declaration of war
-- breaking MPP
-- being top dog way way above other civs.

But what about these?

1. Short war: Settling for peace with Egypt before 20 turn Military Alliance with Rome vs Egypt expires?

2. Embargo: Setting up a trade embargo?

3. City capture: Taking a few cities and then settling for peace?

4. Resource grabbing: Building a city taking a resource near another civ border, or superceeding a colony?

In last game, I think I did #1 and haunted me for entire game. Ugh.

More Questions:
A-- How do you monitor your reputation?

B-- How much will a "bad" reputation hurt?

C-- How can I repair a poor reputation?

D-- Is there a way to wreck a targeted AI civ's reputation?


Thank you for your suggestions.

-- PF

1: I find it it makes the rest of the world furious or annoyed with me

2: If you mean the trade emargo pact, yes. Putting ships around a harbor, IDK, never did it.

3: See #1

4: It would only offend that civ in question.

A: Reguarly press F4 and find out.

B: I'm not sure, ask Firaxis.

C: Charity, time, and more Charity.

D: AFAIK, you can't. There is no "third party" way of doing anything in this game. I could see exposing an enemy spy would but how often is that.

[vondrack]

Do not forget to establish embassies with everybody. Those you forget tend to dislike you... Trade as much as possible, while not bleeding AIs dry.

[WarpStorm]

Actually, there are many ways to ruin a targets rep.

The easiest is to cause him to break a trade deal. You can remove the luxury or resource he is trading either by cutting the trade route, blockading harbors, nuke his capital, or grabbing the tile yourself.

If he declares war on you while having a unit in your territory, this will count as a ROP infraction (whether or not there was one in place). This is very easy to achieve. You can also do this by asking him to ally against someone else when you know he's got units there already. Since the AI only loosely follows the guideline of stay in your own country these are easy.

One of my favorites is to get them into a war with someone they just got a peace treaty with.

[Thrawn05]

How about demanding tribut until they declare war on you and let them give the first punch.

That would ruin it to I guess.

[Catt]

You're confusing two distinct game concepts here: attitude and reputation. From a recent post in the Strategy Forum:

Reputation is driven by your diplomatic and trading history. Made a peace treaty and then declared war again with 20 turns? Bad. Made a military alliance and then made peace with the enemy within 20 turns? Bad. Agreed to a gold-per-turn trade deal and then had the deal broken? Bad. Attacked a civ without first declaring war and/or declared war with any of your units inside the enemy civs territorial borders? Bad. Basically, not honoring your commitments results in a black mark against your reputation. Black marks may prevent you from entering into any per-turn deals in the future -- break a treaty in the Middle Ages and you may still have trouble in the late Industrial Ages trading with a civ for that extra supply of oil that they have within their borders and/or for that extra luxury which could mean so much to your larger, marketplace-equipped industrial cities - they "would never accept such a deal" with someone known for breaking his / her word in the past.

Attitude is simply a civ's current state of mind regarding your civ. Develop your empire into the world's dominant civ? Expect some negative attitudes. Hold a seemingly insurmountable technological / military lead? Expect some negative attitudes. Refuse to trade with your neighbors? Expect some negative attitudes. Refuse to ever grant an RoP and insist, at the first opportunity, on expelling interlopers? Expect some negative attitudes. Fight wars against your neighbors? Expect some negative attitudes. Rule your empire under a government that is a "shunned governement" for the AI civ? Expect mildly more negative attitudes. I don't fully understand the implications of a negative attitude - I'm pretty certain that it strongly affects an AI civ's decision regarding a UN vote; I suspect it makes certain trade deals harder to strike; I suspect that it makes alliances against you easier to secure; and I suspect that it makes war more likely. In at least certain circumstances, I have noticed that attitude does not affect the price of trade deals, but it certainly could in other circumstances.

Reputation and attitude are not joined at the hip -- you can have a sterling reputation and still have the entire world furious with you; and you can have a despicable reputation, but still have the world Gracious to you (I really enjoy seeing "Gracious" Elizabeth, in her most charming and gracious manner, say "We couldn't possibly accept that deal after the perfidy you displayed in your dealings with the Aztecs").

Catt

[planetfall]

And so was it attitude or reputation that caused the Romans not to offer any of their 4 techs for peace, even though they were down to one city and 3, then 2, and then 1 defender?

I would think with 2 armies at their doorstep and having a 4 tech lead, before dying the AI would trade a least one tech for peace.

--PF

[vondrack]

Catt, I just love posts like this...

BTW - seemingly, there is no way to tell one's reputation at a glance, right? One can just guess considering reactions of trading/negotiating partners?

[Catt]

Originally posted by planetfall
And so was it attitude or reputation that caused the Romans not to offer any of their 4 techs for peace, even though they were down to one city and 3, then 2, and then 1 defender?

I would think with 2 armies at their doorstep and having a 4 tech lead, before dying the AI would trade a least one tech for peace.

--PF

Don't know. Could be both. I've found that AI civs are less likely to make peace if I've previously broken peace treaties (i.e., I've blackened my reputation and proven my "peace treaty" isn't worth the paper it's written on). I've also found AI civs unwilling to make peace when my reputation is spotless - usually when I have waged multiple successful wars against that particular AI (we're "traditional enemies").

I prefer to think of such a circumstance as either: (1) an heroic AI choice to fight to the death rather than surrender to me; or (2) that particular AI knows it has lost, but doesn't have the option of reloading, restarting, or just turning off the game to go outside and do something else -- it chooses to commit suicide and retire to the AI civ lounge to b*tch and moan about the unfair tactics employed by the human player.

Catt

Edit for spelling.

[Catt]

Originally posted by vondrack
BTW - seemingly, there is no way to tell one's reputation at a glance, right? One can just guess considering reactions of trading/negotiating partners?

The only way I can tell is if I offer up a resource / RoP / gold-per-turn deal and my trade advisor warns me that the would "never accept such a deal." If I propose the deal anyway, depending upon the nature of the black mark on my rep and the attitude of the potential trading partner, I can get seemingly polite declinations or vicious denunciations of my proposal. I try very hard to preserve my reputation, but sometimes I ruin it inadvertantly -- when I do I like to make unacceptable proposals just to see the funny responses (I haven't looked in all the text files to see the possibilities).

Also, PF - there may be exceptions (like just before extermination), but I can't recall an AI civ even consenting to see my envoy during the first 5 turns of war. I don't know if your specific case was a refusal to agree to peace or a refusal to even see your envoy.

Catt

Edit for spelling.

[planetfall]

Catt,

Agree to Peace. Would accept Peace for Peace but not ( Peace+1 tech ) for ( Peace ). Everyone kept complaining about "we remember what you did to Egypt" so I guess it was reputation. Like I mentioned earlier, I think it was because on turn 19 of war, Egypt offer peace + X gpt and I foolishly accepted it.

I was just annoyed because I was tried a series of shorter wars vs Rome and was hoping I could set up a situation where at each peace I would get at least ( 1 tech + Peace ) from Rome. Did not happen, even once. Don't know if it was because of the Egypt mistake or something else was going on.

Basically tired of that game with bad reputation so started a new one but trying not to make the same mistakes.

-- PF

[Theseus]

I wonder if there actually is "put the AI civ out of its misery" code?

[Catt]

Originally posted by planetfall
Everyone kept complaining about "we remember what you did to Egypt" so I guess it was reputation. Like I mentioned earlier, I think it was because on turn 19 of war, Egypt offer peace + X gpt and I foolishly accepted it.

I was just annoyed because I was tried a series of shorter wars vs Rome and was hoping I could set up a situation where at each peace I would get at least ( 1 tech + Peace ) from Rome. Did not happen, even once. Don't know if it was because of the Egypt mistake or something else was going on.

I can't recall getting a gigantic black mark for terminating a military alliance a few turns early - yes, it hurts your rep, but not nearly to the degree that RoP abuse or a new declaration of war before 20 turns have passed in the initial peace treaty seems to do. Did you have (1) a RoP with Egypt, (2) troops in Egyptian territory when you declared war, or (3) initiate war during a 20-turn peace treaty with Egypt? That will really cause problems - and your peace while in turn 19 of a military alliance was actually a betrayal of Rome (your ally) not Egypt.

Also, be aware that because technologies have become more "expensive" under 1.29f, it seems to be harder to extort techs than it was under 1.21.

Theseus - I doubt there's a "put me out of my misery code" but I like to imagine that there is.

Catt

[Traelin]

I just wanted to make an addendum to what Warp said. My personal experiences in Civ3 have caused me to ABSOLUTELY, AT ALL COSTS avoid two things. They are:

1. Attacking a Civ while having a unit stationed in their territory. Regardless of a formal declaration of war, this is viewed as a ROP violation and REALLY REALLY sucks. It'll eventually bite you in the butt later on in the game, GUARANTEED.

2. Attacking a Civ during a 20 turn trade deal also REALLY REALLY sucks, especially if you were paying him/her for a Tech. I found myself 1.5 AGES (not Techs) behind the rest of the world because I accidentally did this. On Emperor and Deity this is very bad. I'm still playing through this game and have closed the gap to 1 Age and have been busy kissing everyone's asses until I get MAs.

[Thrawn05]

I wish there was an option that would tell that certain civ what you think of them.

I'm sure many of you came across a civ that was Gracious towards you but you pretty much had enough of them.

IDK, I guess just blowing them off the earth is just as good.